Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<ve8iob$354g5$3@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.in-chemnitz.de!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly rejects input DDD Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2024 07:53:31 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 113 Message-ID: <ve8iob$354g5$3@dont-email.me> References: <ve39pb$24k00$1@dont-email.me> <ve56ko$2i956$1@dont-email.me> <ve5nr2$2khlq$1@dont-email.me> <212f549294ebc77a918569aea93bea2a4a20286a@i2pn2.org> <ve6j1u$2og2c$1@dont-email.me> <f9d1bf5073fbffaa8d19bc76ca53020d263e7e16@i2pn2.org> <ve76ad$2reoe$1@dont-email.me> <307da0d6504494d6bba2b52b14d735d408b53c54@i2pn2.org> <ve7gvi$30h1o$1@dont-email.me> <77ee281a7ca732b64eb0d09d18f3117921e4072f@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2024 14:53:31 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="515b45b501ce844a27ace5f6ef725064"; logging-data="3314181"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18oW9my9pwV1HBeNu8Bs36O" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:mVt557HfuGG6G/g4EyCbozXiC3Y= In-Reply-To: <77ee281a7ca732b64eb0d09d18f3117921e4072f@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 5902 On 10/10/2024 6:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/9/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/9/2024 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 10/9/24 8:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/9/2024 6:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 10/9/24 2:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 10/9/2024 6:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/9/24 7:01 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/9/2024 1:08 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/8/2024 6:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote: >>>>>>>>>> ... after a short break. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Richard -- no-one sane carries on an extended discussion >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> someone they [claim to] consider a "stupid liar". So which >>>>>>>>>> are you? >>>>>>>>>> Not sane? Or stupid enough to try to score points off someone >>>>>>>>>> who is >>>>>>>>>> incapable of conceding them? Or lying when you describe >>>>>>>>>> Peter? You >>>>>>>>>> must surely have better things to do. Meanwhile, you surely >>>>>>>>>> noticed >>>>>>>>>> that Peter is running rings around you. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Peter -- you surely have better things to do. No-one >>>>>>>>>> sensible >>>>>>>>>> is reading the repetitive stuff. Decades, and myriads of >>>>>>>>>> articles, ago >>>>>>>>>> people here tried to help you knock your points into shape, >>>>>>>>>> but anything >>>>>>>>>> sensible is swamped by the insults. Free advice, worth >>>>>>>>>> roughly what you >>>>>>>>>> are paying for it: step back, and summarise [from scratch, >>>>>>>>>> not using HHH >>>>>>>>>> and DDD (etc) without explanation] (a) what it is you think >>>>>>>>>> you are trying >>>>>>>>>> to prove and (b) what progress you claim to have made. No >>>>>>>>>> more than one >>>>>>>>>> side of paper. Assume that people who don't actively insult >>>>>>>>>> you are, in >>>>>>>>>> fact, trying to help. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And this approach has been tried many times. It makes no more >>>>>>>>> progress than the ones you are criticizing. Just assume the >>>>>>>>> regulars are lonesome, very lonesome and USENET keeps everybody >>>>>>>>> off the deserted streets at night. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> HHH is an emulating termination analyzer that takes the machine >>>>>>>> address of DDD as input then emulates the x86 machine language >>>>>>>> of DDD until a non-terminating behavior pattern is recognized. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But fails, because you provided it with a proven incorrect pattern >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> HHH recognizes this pattern when HHH emulates itself emulating DDD >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>> HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>> return; >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which isn't a correct analysis (but of course, that is just what >>>>>>> you do) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since we know that HHH(DDD) returns 0, it can not be a non- >>>>>>> terminating behaivor, but that claim is just a lie. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One cannot simply ignore the actual behavior specified by the >>>>>>>> finite string x86 machine language of DDD such that >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Right, one can not ignore the fact that HHH(DDD) is determined to >>>>>>> return 0. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly >>>>>>>> exist never returns >>>>>>> >>>>>>> More lies. It has been determined that EVERY DDD that calls an >>>>>>> HHH(DDD) that returns 0 will halt. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The DDDs that don't return are the ones that call an HHH that >>>>>>> never returns an answer. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Your weasel words are in incorrect paraphrase of this* >>>>> >>>>> WHAT PARAPHARSE. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly >>>>>> exist never returns >>>>> >>>>> No, that means the behavior of the code of DDD when directly executed. >>>> >>>> THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID !!! >>>> >>> >>> So, you are admitting you don't know what your words mean? Since that >>> *IS* what they mean. Your failure to even attempt to refute my >>> grammer analysis shows you accept my logic, or at least can't fight it. >> >> You are not talking about the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH. >> > > But that was what your previous sentence was talking about, counter-factual. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer